--On Saturday, August 7, 2004 1:44 PM +1000 Brian Havard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 2.13 macro is actually AC_MSG_WARN but when I tried using that it still
failed while it was contained in the m4_if. Moving the line out of the
m4_if, having the $0 in there seems to cause some kind of infinite
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, August 7, 2004 1:44 PM +1000 Brian Havard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 2.13 macro is actually AC_MSG_WARN but when I tried using that it
still
failed while it was contained in the m4_if. Moving the line out of the
m4_if, having the $0 in there seems to
So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr
RC5 is OK?
Are those who wanted the ldap code yanked now happy that it can be added
back in?
david
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 12:36 PM +0100 David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr RC5
is OK?
Releasing 1.0 with the known fact that autoconf-2.13 doesn't work with
find_apr.m4 seems fine by me. We can release the latest
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 12:36 PM +0100 David Reid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that
apr RC5
is OK?
Releasing 1.0 with the known fact that autoconf-2.13 doesn't work with
find_apr.m4 seems fine by me. We
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 5:46 PM +0100 David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
patch - but users of the tarball won't likely be running buildconf. [If
you wanted, you could include the new find_apr.m4 in 1.0 - your call.]
OK. Which version is the one I should be including?
I *believe* r1.16 of
David Reid wrote:
So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that
apr RC5 is OK?
Are those who wanted the ldap code yanked now happy that it can be
added back in?
david
Here is what I'm getting trying to compile the latest HEAD on WIN32:
Creating apr_ldap.h from apr_ldap.hw
Hi,
Perhaps im way off on this and please do correct me if i am wrong.
Condition variables on Win32 are broken, if you are going to label
APR with 1.0 mark and release it right now, without mentioning this
fact in big red letters, this would essentially be equal to releasing
a trojan horse - a
Second that. The Win32 conditional problem was not new. I reported it
and submited a patch back on Oct 28, 2003. Someone was looking at it
(forgot the name), but never did check in a fix... Along the way,
someone else ran into it and filed a report in bugzilla (id# 27654).
Still no fix. I have
Hi!
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:57:09PM +0400, malc wrote:
Perhaps im way off on this and please do correct me if i am wrong.
Condition variables on Win32 are broken, if you are going to label
APR with 1.0 mark and release it right now, without mentioning this
fact in big red letters, this
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 8:57 PM +0400 malc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Condition variables on Win32 are broken, if you are going to label
APR with 1.0 mark and release it right now, without mentioning this
fact in big red letters, this would
malc,
is there anything that can be done in our apr/test/ tree to validate
the correct behavior, and tickle these bugs? This would obviously
help validate the patches you propose, and possibly pick up such
bugs in other condition variable implementations.
The emphasis for 1.0.0 is
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My only concern is that apr-util still isn't 'fixed' wrt apu-config. I
don't
know if I'll have time to port those changes over soon.
I've already posted a patch!
Max.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
malc,
is there anything that can be done in our apr/test/ tree to validate
the correct behavior, and tickle these bugs? This would obviously
help validate the patches you propose, and possibly pick up such
bugs in other condition variable
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 8:34 PM +0100 Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My only concern is that apr-util still isn't 'fixed' wrt apu-config. I
don't
know if I'll have time to port those changes over soon.
I've already posted a patch!
Oh, wow, you did. ;-) I'll
David Reid wrote:
Are those who wanted the ldap code yanked now happy that it can be added
back in?
The majority of the fooness on the LDAP stuff was caused by the attempt
to support the now archaic LDAP v2.0 C SDK, using macros. All the macros
are now gone.
Please speak up if there is
The chances that I have time to look at this are slim to none
currently. My time is currently being swallowed by my job and my real
life.
Ryan
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:52:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:46 PM 8/9/2004, malc wrote:
No, but i would guess taking some
17 matches
Mail list logo